2024 (9) TMI 699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....djudicating authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a proprietorship firm being engaged in rendering Repair & Maintenance of electrical transformers to M/s Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as M/s MPPKVVCL). M/s MPPKVVCL is wholly owned by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The M/s MPPKVVCL is engaged in the business of transmission of electricity within the different districts of Madhya Pradesh. The Appellant had entered into a contract with the M/s MPPKVVCL for repair & maintenance of electrical transformers of different capacities. During the course of repairing of electrical transformers, several vital parts of the transformers are replaced. The contract entered b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpted in lieu of the Notification dated 27.02.2010, as the transformers are most and vital instruments for the transmission of electricity. 3.1. Learned Counsel further submitted that the adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the scope of SCN which is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. He further submitted that the Department had failed to extend the benefit of the materials supplied by the appellant because the Service Tax cannot be imposed on the values of materials as VAT had been paid by the appellant. The Ld. Counsel further contended that there is no suppression on the part of the Appellant. The Appellant was of the view that the services rendered by him are an exempted services in light of the Notification dated 27.02.2010 accor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....06.2003 is not available to them. Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20-6-2003 (with effect from 1-7-2003) provides abatement/exemption equal to the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient of service subject to the condition that there is documentary proof for the value of materials and goods used. 4.2 The Ld. AR further contended that the appellant paid freight/transportation charges for the transportation of transformers. These charges were reimbursed by the service recipient as per the contract. The LD AR stated that GTA service was taxable under section 65(105)(zzp) of the Finance Act, 1994. The person liable to pay service tax in relation to GTA services is the one who pays or is liable to pay the fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....). In view of the above, ld AR prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed. 5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel and the Ld. AR for the Department. On perusal of the records and the impugned order, we note that the appellant did not file any written reply to the show cause notice nor did he appear for personal hearings, as recorded by the original adjudicating authority in para 23 of the Order-in-original dated 26.05.2017. We also note that the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) but failed to appear when personal hearings were fixed, as has been recorded in para 4 of the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2018. 5.1 However, we note that the Ld Counsel appeared for the hearing before this Bench. During his submissions bef....